Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, May 4, 1995 TAG: 9505040099
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-14 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Associated Press|
DATELINE: PARIS LENGTH: Medium
With hard times at home, the officials say, parliaments in major donor countries may seize upon proposed cutbacks by Congress to justify their own reluctance to give government aid.
Rather than take up the slack, ``others will say that if we don't think aid is important, why should they?'' Carol Lancaster, deputy head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said in an interview.
Some critics of government aid, however, claim the future of foreign aid may be largely in private rather than government-funded programs. They say cutbacks in government aid are unavoidable because of economic problems, and that private agencies already are increasing their operations as governments cut back.
Lancaster is in Paris for what she expects to be a stormy session with delegates from other donor governments, who argue that Washington must not cut back on helping fragile nations.
Like her, many of the delegates face growing popular sentiment that foreign aid is extravagant, ineffective and better spent on domestic problems.
The aid professionals counter that foreign assistance spent at the right time is essential to head off violent upheaval, famine, epidemics and worsening poverty.
``Rwanda has shown the enormous cost of dealing with crises if we cannot prevent them,'' Lancaster said. ``When these disasters erupt, we will have to respond.'' The United States alone had to spend $1 billion in relief in Rwanda last year.
Without enough funds, she added, Washington would be less able to influence world events.
``We would be reduced to the role of observer, if not mendicant,'' she said, stopping short of the synonym, beggar.
Aid critics in the United States, however, argue that the impact of U.S. assistance is exaggerated, and note contributions of nongovernmental aid organizations.
``We're already seeing the private sector providing much more economic aid than the government,'' said Brian Johnson, a policy analyst for international economics at the Heritage Foundation.
Johnson said private U.S. charities spend about $12 billion in foreign aid each year.
Djibril Diallo, spokesman for the U.N. Development Program in New York and a veteran of African crisis relief, argued any reduction in foreign aid by Congress would influence other government donors.
``The American people have always been known to be generous, and any shift would have serious repercussions,'' he said. ``Without U.S. leadership, we will see loss of life and multiplied poverty.''
With the Marshall Plan after World War II, the United States defined the concept of foreign aid and for decades was the principal donor.
Some governments calculate their payments to international agencies as a percentage of the U.S. contribution.
Now that Japan gives more, its official aid totalling $11 billion, compared to $9.7 billion from Washington. Congress is debating cuts of up to 30 percent, mostly in aid to Africa, Asia and Latin America.
In a recent blunt letter, Japanese Foreign Minister Yohei Kono expressed ``grave concern'' to Secretary of State Warren Christopher that U.S. leadership in foreign aid might be waning.
Most developed countries face difficulties, he wrote, but foreign aid was ``one of the most vitally important items ... affecting the lives of all the world's peoples.''
But although Japan and some Nordic countries are maintaining their aid levels, most European donors, including the European Union nations, are considering severe cuts.
by CNB